No one in particular teaches it. Some of the folks here could be considered teachers of it. But many people arrive at the conclusion all on their own. Looking at the evidence for god and eventually concluding that religion simply does not make sense, then it is s short trip to not believing in any gods..

Can you tell me what the soul is? what it's function is? It's effective relationship to the essence of me?

So it has no authority over anyone even you?Ok - So what age were you when you started believing in this doctrine that lacks leadership, is promoted by no one and has no humane guidance for others to follow in a civilized society?

So it has no authority over anyone even you?Ok - So what age were you when you started believing in this doctrine that lacks leadership, is promoted by no one and has no humane guidance for others to follow in a civilized society?

No one teaches atheism. It is not a doctrine. It is a rational conclusion. It requires no leadership other than to help push back against centuries of prejudice and theistic privilege. It does not offer "humane guidance" because it is not that kind of "ism". I don't see you bitching about baseball not offering any humane guidance. That is because it would be a categorical error to do so. Just as it is to suggest atheism should offer that kind of insight. Technically, it isn't an "ism" at all.

I also see atheism as observational rather than pedagogic. I don't study the moral ramifications of the observation that there are no purple paisley elephants hiding in the lilac bush outside My house, nor do I attempt to indoctrinate children in this regard. I might get upset if City Council opened meetings with "O Most Holy Purple Paisley Elephant in Astreja's garden," not because it's a church-state separation issue but because it's just plain silly and a waste of meeting time.

When I'm out in the garden, if someone were to come up to me and insist that such a pachyderm was hiding amidst the clumps of purple flowers, it suffices to say "What elephant?"

That my point. If it was a force for good you would think it would be on the schools agenda.

Quote

It is a rational conclusion.

What rationale conclusion. There is no truth in it. How can you teach an untruth to anyone.

Quote

It requires no leadership other than to help push back against centuries of prejudice and theistic privilege.

Nonsense. People respond to the force for Good. Theist like Jesus pushed back on Judaism. Nanak Pushed back on Hinduism and Islam. Moses pushing back on the Pharaohs of Egypt.

Quote

It does not offer "humane guidance" because it is not that kind of "ism".

We know that it is forked tongue. You are ready to put to shame the priests or the religious but not condemn those that have no religion or no religious guidance. Like those on the Jeremy Kyle show gets a free pass for no one need to teach them or educate them but for the religious who is trying you are pro belittling them calling yourself a force for Good and push back. You are not helping the situation of man you are deluding people. You need to have some form of education for the people who have no religion, smokes, takes drugs, rapes other people children, and educate them on why they should live moral lives.

Quote

I don't see you bitching about baseball not offering any humane guidance.

Of course you don't -- you are too busy influencing the innocent in the wrong direction.

Quote

That is because it would be a categorical error to do so.

Youre dreaming up a scenario

Quote

Just as it is to suggest atheism should offer that kind of insight. Technically, it isn't an "ism" at all.

Nope - Theism has a moral agenda, Thou shall not kill, not lie, not steal, not covet, It is aware of the negative agenda and of those who do not follow these laws intice an entire society into more and more corruption of the innocent. It is aware of the human condition that leads to more and more suffering of mankind. Theism has wisdom and education that brings peace if it was not for those that disbelieve and influence others to do the wrong things which lowers the human conscious awareness into more and more selfishness.

What is atheism without leadership, without logical rationale, without intelligent observations regarding action and reaction laws? It is not a force for good for the innocent - so what sort of ism is it if not the opposite of theism??

Theists teach us that a higher power is aware of this state of lower mind and we have to raise our consciousness and avoid these lower states of lust greed ego anger etc which brings more and more suffering to our being.

Atheism is nothing more than misdirecting the attention of people and not addressing the real issues for a better more humane evolution of mankind.

That is irrelevant. I have reality as my priority. You do not. I do not know how to convince you just how stupid that is. It seems entirely self evident to me. When you allow one stupid, comfortable lie to defeat reality, you permit many. You end up with a society full of mouth-breathing idiots who make idiotic decisions, detached from reality, based on their comfortable lies.

That's exactly what a theist says. Atheists say it is dictatorial. How weird.

Quote

Decisions are made based on how people understand reality. If their understanding is inaccurate, poor decisions will be made. I know that no one has a perfect model of reality. But those of us who model personality as a brain function have a superior model than those of us who think it is "spirit". It answers more questions and allows us to anticipate results more accurately.

I think the problem with your theory is this: Since god does not manifest himself in anyway, bible/religious teachings are ineffective at enforcement. As an amoral person grows up and realizes that he can steal, rape, and harm others with no ramifications while reaping the benefit of being considerd a god fearing church goer as an alibi.

like the general population, rape, murder, theft... are comitted by religous people about as frequently as non religious. In fact the studies I have read tend to give a slight edge to atheists on the morality front. But this may be a socioeconomic thing rather than some higher moral teaching methodology.

God is like the permissive parent, who disowns his children if they grow up in a manner not up to his standards. You let the kid run wild and hope they will turn out good if you just tell them repeatedly to be good. I try to be consistent with my messages to my kids, with even expected consequences demonstrated upon bad behavior. I explain the error of their way, and remove privileges, all the way to corporal punishment on occasion for repeated serious offences.

A few advantages I have over god is that I am visible, I observe, communicate, and physically intervene. God/religion is that woman we all see at the mall saying " Billy stop, Billy stop, Billy you better stop or I will say stop again, Billy, BILLY, Billy, Billy, Billy do you want a cookie, if you stop I will give you a cookie, and a video game."

That my point. If it was a force for good you would think it would be on the schools agenda.

No. You completely missed the point. It is not something that is teachable. It is a conclusion derived of things that are taught in schools. They also do not teach that the moon is not made of cheese in schools. Instead, they teach what it is made of. Nor do they teach that the earth is not flat. They teach what it is actually shaped. So the people who believe the earth is round do not believe in aflatearthism.

And whether it is a force for good or not is a matter of opinion. Lots and lots of stupid, bigoted people think it is evil. Does that make it evil? Of course not. All the things that made me an atheist are considered to be forces for good and are taught in schools.

It requires no leadership other than to help push back against centuries of prejudice and theistic privilege.

Nonsense. People respond to the force for Good. Theist like Jesus pushed back on Judaism. Nanak Pushed back on Hinduism and Islam. Moses pushing back on the Pharaohs of Egypt.

I don't know what the heck you are responding to. Your reply has nothing to do with my post other than you latched onto a couple of words and detached them from all context of how I used them.

You are also wrong, in two of the examples you gave. jesus H did not push back against judaism. He allegely pushed back against the priestly class and the rules they made. Nanak did not push back against islam or hinduism. He combined them. As for moses, well, he probably wasn't a real person anyway.

It's not a fucking "ism" you thickheaded twit! There should be no such word as "atheism". It is a nonsense word. Someone who beleives in god is a "theist". Someone who does not is an "atheist". Literally, from the Greek, "without belief in god". Without a belief, there can be no "ism". There is no doctrine. How do you form an "ism" on what you do not believe? People who believe in heliocentrism are not followers of "ageocentrism". I am an atheist because I believe in logic, evidence, rational methods, science. That stuff is not "atheism". That stuff is just the basis of knowledge.

I guess you were drunk when you wrote this. Because it is even stupider than your usual posts. Which is really, really stupid to begin with.

Until you can stay on topic and make sense, I recommend you stay away.

It's not. I explained why. If a "theist" is someone who has beliefs in gods, then an "a-theist" is someone without those beliefs. The theist may have theism because there can be a whole system of beliefs regarding those gods. There can be no system of beliefs for being without a belief.

You really fail to understand that the word atheism only exists because there is theism. The letter "a" in front of a word, simply means without; like symptomatic and asymptomatic. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you will cease to make a fool of yourself.

You really fail to understand that the word atheism only exists because there is theism. The letter "a" in front of a word, simply means without; like symptomatic and asymptomatic. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you will cease to make a fool of yourself.

Nice. So you understand that theist sets the agenda for you to figure out. Is that too hard for you??It has always been that way. Some seeds fall on good ground and others fall on stony ground.

The agenda is updated - simply put and still true is that "Theists know God and atheist do not".

You might feel happy debating with everyone who does not know God but the theists are still teaching the same old path thousands of years later and you still find yourself lacking the wisdom that creates believers out of atheists.

The only fool the theist sees is the ones who choose to deceive themselves and others making claims they know something when they do not.

(Springy G's face goes deathly pale, then an amazing shade of red, as She reaches for Her Clue-By-Four™ ...)

How. Dare. You!

*BAM BAM SMASH BEAT KLONK THUD WHAP*

For that egregious slur against the characters of people you have never met in real life, may your faith become a millstone that drags you to the very nadir of your life until such time as you let it go forever and return to the real world.